Creationist objections to plant evolution?

[rusra02]

So would you be kind enough to give everyone here a clear definition of 'kind' so as to facilitate discussion?

I believe this has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. According to a Bible encyclopaedia, The Biblical "kind" "seems to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits." (Insight on the Scriptures 2 p.153) Thus, the boundary between "kinds" is drawn at the point where successful fertilization ceases to occur.
What evolutionists choose to call a new "species" is simply a matter of variation within a Genesis "kind".

 

[mycorrhiza]

The creative days have been discussed at length elsewhere in this forum. The Bible certainly presents a clear description of Creation; The sun, moon, and stars were created long prior to Earth's preparation for mankind, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Genesis chapters one and two assign several meanings to the word "day": (Interestingly, a 24-hour period is not one of these meanings

• The time the light occurs, as opposed to darkness (1:4,5)
• An evening and morning (describing a creative epoch, as in 1:5)
• A time period marking an event (2:4)

If the days were long periods of time, the plants would have died, as most require photosynthesis. There was no sun before the day after the plants, and I see no indication that there was a sun before that in the Biblical account. The story still doesn't match the fossil record as we see plants and animals together, before the first flowering plants.

And if the day were short periods of time, then they really don't fit the fossil record one single bit. So the long days are more logical, but we still need to solve that the plants were created the day before the sun was. My guess is that the people back then in that culture didn't fully connect the sun with the light. That's how there could be night and day before the sun.

There could still have been creation, but it couldn't have looked the way it did in Genesis.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I believe this has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. According to a Bible encyclopaedia, The Biblical "kind" "seems to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits." (Insight on the Scriptures 2 p.153) Thus, the boundary between "kinds" is drawn at the point where successful fertilization ceases to occur.
What evolutionists choose to call a new "species" is simply a matter of variation within a Genesis "kind".

What about the new species that cannot reproduce with their parent species due to polyploidy? Do infertile off-spring count as seperate "kinds" too, as they cannot reproduce with the parent species? There are many cases of plants reproducing by "cloning" themselves. Does the off-spring need to be fertile for them to belong to the same "kind"? For example, are garden strawberries and wild strawberries the same "kind"?

What would you say is the taxonomic rank that is closest to "kind"?

 

[rusra02]

If the days were long periods of time, the plants would have died, as most require photosynthesis. There was no sun before the day after the plants, and I see no indication that there was a sun before that in the Biblical account. The story still doesn't match the fossil record as we see plants and animals together, before the first flowering plants.

And if the day were short periods of time, then they really don't fit the fossil record one single bit. So the long days are more logical, but we still need to solve that the plants were created the day before the sun was. My guess is that the people back then in that culture didn't fully connect the sun with the light. That's how there could be night and day before the sun.

There could still have been creation, but it couldn't have looked the way it did in Genesis.

You are misreading the Genesis account, as mentioned in my previous post. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The heavens includes the billions of stars, including our Sun. In describing events relative to the earth, the darkness cleared sufficiently "upon the surface" (Genesis 1:2) of the earth for light to penetrate to earth's surface. Thus, light shone on earth's surface on the first creative day, allowing for later photosynthesis.

​

​

 

[mycorrhiza]

You are misreading the Genesis account, as mentioned in my previous post. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The heavens includes the billions of stars, including our Sun. In describing events relative to the earth, the darkness cleared sufficiently "upon the surface" (Genesis 1:2) of the earth for light to penetrate to earth's surface. Thus, light shone on earth's surface on the first creative day, allowing for later photosynthesis.

Then what did God do on the fourth day?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe this has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. According to a Bible encyclopaedia, The Biblical "kind" "seems to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits." (Insight on the Scriptures 2 p.153) Thus, the boundary between "kinds" is drawn at the point where successful fertilization ceases to occur.
What evolutionists choose to call a new "species" is simply a matter of variation within a Genesis "kind".

If this is the case, then we can and have observed evolution change one "kind" to another "kind".

 

[painted wolf]

Somewhere between 30-80% of plants are the result of polyploidy mutations and can't reproduce with their "parent species".... thus between 30-80% of the plant kingdom is comprised of unique "kinds".

Quite a few of which we have seen happen in our history or have produced ourselves.

Human farmers = God?

wa:do

 

[dust1n]

The creative days have been discussed at length elsewhere in this forum. The Bible certainly presents a clear description of Creation; The sun, moon, and stars were created long prior to Earth's preparation for mankind, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Genesis chapters one and two assign several meanings to the word "day": (Interestingly, a 24-hour period is not one of these meanings

• The time the light occurs, as opposed to darkness (1:4,5)
• An evening and morning (describing a creative epoch, as in 1:5)
• A time period marking an event (2:4)

Then why does it say God created the stars on the fourth day, not the first? The plants were made day three.

SOURCE:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning —the third day.

And then!!!

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.

Of course, he forget to mention when he created all of the NON-seed-bearing plants. I guess he never got around to them?

 

[shawn001]

Rusra, watch the video on the evolution of flowers earlier in the thread.

Your done, your just being stubborn and ignorant of the actual facts. You continue to argue against extremely well known science and established facts, in ALL the sciences.

We have mapped the plant genomes.

"Plant Genome Mapping Laboratory
Center for Applied Genetic Technologies

"We study the hereditary information that makes plants different from other organisms and from one another. The importance of plants to sustaining humanity is reflected by the many ecosystem services they provide us, including oxygen, medicines, food, feed, fiber, fuel, erosion and flooding control, soil regeneration, and other benefits. Following closely on the success of the Human Genome Project, plant genomics is entering a Golden Era, with many exciting new opportunities to better understand the world around us and provide in a sustainable manner for the needs of humanity.Our research falls into three general areas:


Identification and implementation of DNA diagnostic tools that are predictive of specific plant characteristics such as disease resistance, improved productivity, or improved quality in close collaboration with scientists in several applied agricultural disciplines; thereby contributing to accelerated improvement of plants to better suit human purposes by traditional means such as classical plant breeding. [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica][/FONT]Identification of specific genes that are responsible for characteristics important to plant development, evolution, or agriculture, and elucidating the function(s) of these genes. Elucidating plant biodiversity at the genic and genomic level; gaining better understanding of the 200-million year history of flowering plant diversification from a hypothetical common ancestor, and better understanding specific molecular-level events that have contributed to the ability of flowering plants to colonize much of the Earth.


Welcome to PGML


Name ANY field of science that doesn't support evolution.

 

[rusra02]

If the days were long periods of time, the plants would have died, as most require photosynthesis. There was no sun before the day after the plants, and I see no indication that there was a sun before that in the Biblical account. The story still doesn't match the fossil record as we see plants and animals together, before the first flowering plants.

And if the day were short periods of time, then they really don't fit the fossil record one single bit. So the long days are more logical, but we still need to solve that the plants were created the day before the sun was. My guess is that the people back then in that culture didn't fully connect the sun with the light. That's how there could be night and day before the sun.

There could still have been creation, but it couldn't have looked the way it did in Genesis.

As previously stated, you are mistaken about the Sun. Light shone on the earth on creative day one, and the source of that light could be seen on day four, evidently due to earth's atmosphere gradually clearing. (Genesis 1:3,14)

 

[rusra02]

Then what did God do on the fourth day?

The sources of the light seen on day one remained invisible on earth. During the fourth day, the sun, moon and stars were made "to shine upon the earth." (Genesis 1:17)
The Hebrew word for light is 'ohr, light in a general sense at Genesis 1:3, but ma 'ohr, which refers to the source of light, in Genesis 1:14)

"Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens [earth's atmosphere] to make a division between the day and the night." (vs 14)

 

[rusra02]

Then why does it say God created the stars on the fourth day, not the first? The plants were made day three.

SOURCE:



And then!!!




Of course, he forget to mention when he created all of the NON-seed-bearing plants. I guess he never got around to them?

If you read the accound carefully, Genesis does not say that God "created" the sun, moon, and stars on day four. Where did the light come from on day one, if not from the sun? "God proceeded to make" the luminaries in that the Sun, moon, and stars could now be seen from the earth.

As to plants not mentioned in Genesis, "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created." (Revelation 4:11)

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Rusra, watch the video on the evolution of flowers earlier in the thread.

Your done, your just being stubborn and ignorant of the actual facts. You continue to argue against extremely well known science and established facts, in ALL the sciences.

We have mapped the plant genomes.

"Plant Genome Mapping Laboratory
Center for Applied Genetic Technologies

"We study the hereditary information that makes plants different from other organisms and from one another. The importance of plants to sustaining humanity is reflected by the many ecosystem services they provide us, including oxygen, medicines, food, feed, fiber, fuel, erosion and flooding control, soil regeneration, and other benefits. Following closely on the success of the Human Genome Project, plant genomics is entering a Golden Era, with many exciting new opportunities to better understand the world around us and provide in a sustainable manner for the needs of humanity.Our research falls into three general areas:


Identification and implementation of DNA diagnostic tools that are predictive of specific plant characteristics such as disease resistance, improved productivity, or improved quality in close collaboration with scientists in several applied agricultural disciplines; thereby contributing to accelerated improvement of plants to better suit human purposes by traditional means such as classical plant breeding. Identification of specific genes that are responsible for characteristics important to plant development, evolution, or agriculture, and elucidating the function(s) of these genes. Elucidating plant biodiversity at the genic and genomic level; gaining better understanding of the 200-million year history of flowering plant diversification from a hypothetical common ancestor, and better understanding specific molecular-level events that have contributed to the ability of flowering plants to colonize much of the Earth.


Welcome to PGML


Name ANY field of science that doesn't support evolution.

Your personal attacks are typical of frustrated evolutionists who simply cannot convince everyone to drink their propaganda kool-aid. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks, false religions- all repeat this "evolution is a fact" propaganda. Michael Denton called such claims "nonsense", but it is more. It is fraud. The facts are that scientific facts don't support evolution. For every claimed "proof" of evolution, scientists provide facts to debunk such claimed "proof". Many scientists do not accept evolution, a fact embarrassing to the ToE proponents. Their response to such opposing voices is to belittle and marginalize them as much as possible, the same tactics evident in this forum among evolutionists.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not interested in "marginalizing" or "belittling" literalistic creationists as a scientist and inevitable "ToE proponent." I simply demand that what they are teaching be taught where it is supposed to be taught and not presented as science when it is not. I'm totally cool with religious creation stories being taught in, say, a world religions class or as part of studying literature. I'm a type of creationist myself, just not a literalistic Bible-based one. I find stories about creation fascinating, but they are not science and shouldn't be taught as such.

 

[dust1n]

If you read the accound carefully, Genesis does not say that God "created" the sun, moon, and stars on day four.

Yes it does. It literally says that (well, not the moon, but the stars). You want to copy your version of day four onto the forum?

Where did the light come from on day one, if not from the sun?

That's a good question. Perhaps you should ask the Bible?

"God proceeded to make" the luminaries in that the Sun, moon, and stars could now be seen from the earth.

Before actually making the stars. I guess it's possible for God to make the light coming from the stars before actually making them.

As to plants not mentioned in Genesis, "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created." (Revelation 4:11)

Glad that tid bit was added centuries later.



King James version: (notice how it isn't heavens here? I guess 'heaven' was synonymous with space.)

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.



Seems like someone has a bad, bad case of Cherry pickin'.

 

[averageJOE]

If you read the accound carefully, Genesis does not say that God "created" the sun, moon, and stars on day four. Where did the light come from on day one, if not from the sun? "God proceeded to make" the luminaries in that the Sun, moon, and stars could now be seen from the earth.

Curious, what was preventing the light from the sun reaching earth? It takes about 8 to 9 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth. According to your book and belief it took take 4 days. Why? Again, what was preventing it?

(Let's not talk about stars that are billions upon billions of miles away that take years for the light to reach earth. But god, for some reason, allowed it to happen in 4 days.)

 

[painted wolf]

Let's also not talk about the stars we see forming and dying right now.
Maybe we are still in "Day 4".

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

Curious, what was preventing the light from the sun reaching earth? It takes about 8 to 9 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth. According to your book and belief it took take 4 days. Why? Again, what was preventing it?

(Let's not talk about stars that are billions upon billions of miles away that take years for the light to reach earth. But god, for some reason, allowed it to happen in 4 days.)

The brief account in Genesis does not specifically say what was blocking the light on day one, or obscuring the sun, moon, and stars until day 4. Genesis 1:2 reveals that early in earth's history, "the earth proved to be formless and waster and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep." On day one, God apparently cleared the darkness, possibly due to thick clouds. (Job 38:4,9) Thus, diffused light reached earth's surface for the first time. On day two, God created the atmospheric expanse, and on day four made the heavenly bodies visible in the expanse. This implies a gradual clearing of earth's atmosphere during these creative epochs.

 

[mycorrhiza]

The sources of the light seen on day one remained invisible on earth. During the fourth day, the sun, moon and stars were made "to shine upon the earth." (Genesis 1:17)
The Hebrew word for light is 'ohr, light in a general sense at Genesis 1:3, but ma 'ohr, which refers to the source of light, in Genesis 1:14)

"Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens [earth's atmosphere] to make a division between the day and the night." (vs 14)

The versions I've read all say that he made the sun and the moon on the fourth day. People just didn't make the full connection between the light and the sun. I would say that the interpretation that he made the sun and the moon visible is quite a stretch compared to what the text actually reads. Genesis 1:16 is quite clear on that he makes the sun, moon and stars.

"God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." - Genesis 1:16

I read the same verse in fifteen English Bibles and four Swedish (the Internet is great! ), and they all say "made" or "create", not a single one says "made visible" or something similar to that. I also checked a Hebrew version, and it uses the same word in that verse as when He makes the animals of the Earth and when He makes the firmament. So all versions I've checked (20 in total) are clear on that he actually created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day.

Feel free to provide me with another translation that shows that I am wrong, as being proved wrong means making progress. I might have missed some translation or might have been reading them wrongly.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Your personal attacks are typical of frustrated evolutionists who simply cannot convince everyone to drink their propaganda kool-aid. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks, false religions- all repeat this "evolution is a fact" propaganda. Michael Denton called such claims "nonsense", but it is more. It is fraud. The facts are that scientific facts don't support evolution. For every claimed "proof" of evolution, scientists provide facts to debunk such claimed "proof". Many scientists do not accept evolution, a fact embarrassing to the ToE proponents. Their response to such opposing voices is to belittle and marginalize them as much as possible, the same tactics evident in this forum among evolutionists.

Could you provide some of this "proof" that debunks the evidence for evolution? A huge majority of all scientists in the relevant fields are evolutionists. Science is not about fighting to keep a belief system, it's about finding out the truth. If it was just like a religion, then science would have gone nowhere. The only ones praising Michael Denton seem to be creationists and the ID movement.

If evolution was debunked, I wouldn't believe in it as it would serve no purpose to me. So if you could provide great evidence against evolution, then you could very well get another person on your side! I have yet to see any evidence against evolution that hasn't been debunked, though.

By the way, since you said that many scientists don't believe in evolution, could you provide the names of a few non-Christian biologists who don't believe in evolution?